News

Shootings Escalate in Trigger-Happy Thailand

Guns are fairly easy to acquire in Thailand. Since 1947 it’s been legal to own firearms for “purposes of self-defense, protection of property, sports or hunting,” according to the law.

–

BANGKOK – On the afternoon of July 11, 2017, six or seven gunmen dressed in military outfits arrived at the home of a village chief in the subdistrict of Ban Klang, in Thailand’s Krabi province. Pretending to be government officials, they demanded entry to search the property and warned the chief’s family not to leave the house.

Realizing the chief wasn’t at home at the time, they waited until 8:00 P.M., when he returned. They proceeded to handcuff and blindfold him and his family. They waited until midnight before killing them execution-style, shooting most of them in the head.

The assailants then fled in a car, leaving the police to find six dead bodies and two people fatally wounded. Among the eight dead were three children.

The nature of the killing was shocking for many, especially as it happened in a province popular with tourists for its white cliffs and sandy beaches. Police suspect the killing to have been in a personal dispute with the chief himself.

Although mass killings are rare in Thailand, the incident reignited public interest in a peculiar issue that blights the kingdom. Namely the people’s love of guns.

Thailand’s gun problem is not simply an issue of lax policing or short-sighted counterinsurgency strategy.

When you think of Thailand, you might think of intricate temples, sandy beaches, a bustling nightlife and an idyllic vibe. A country awash with gun violence might be the last thing you consider. And yet, a 2013 study by the University of Washington ranked Thailand number one out of 10 countries in Asia in terms of gun-related deaths per capita.

With 7.48 deaths per 100,000 people in 2013, the Buddhist kingdom suffered higher fatalities from shootings per capita than did the United States, which experienced 3.55 deaths per 100,000 the same year.

Thailand also has the dubious honor of having one of the highest gun-ownership ratios in Asia. According to the country’s interior ministry, there are around six million registered guns among a population of around 67 million, meaning that every one in 10 persons in the country legally owns a gun.

However, the figures are substantially higher once you consider unregistered arms. According to a 2007 report by Small Arms Survey, an independent research project at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, there were an estimated 10 million guns in circulation in the kingdom in 2007, ranking it 11th globally in the number of privately-owned firearms by country.

Thailand’s army has distributed 2,700 assault rifles to civilian volunteers in the country’s Muslim-dominated south amid a renewed effort to confront a violent insurgency.

–

Guns are fairly easy to acquire in Thailand. Since 1947 it’s been legal to own firearms for “purposes of self-defense, protection of property, sports or hunting,” according to the law. You have to be 20 years old and pass background checks to acquire a license.

The guns themselves can cost around $600 to purchase — “not an insurmountable sum for the average Thai,” according to John J. Brandon, the senior director for the The Asia Foundation’s regional cooperation programs.

Acquiring arms on the black market isn’t difficult. Many guns are smuggled over the Cambodian and Myanmar border and can be found in markets in border areas. Even authority figures help feed the proliferation of illegal arms. Since government employees are entitled to buy a gun at a discount, some declare their weapon lost and sell it for a hefty sum on the black market.

Others accept bribes to speed up the process of acquiring a license. Military and paramilitary officials have also been known to sell weapons to non-state entities.

A long running insurgency in Thailand’s deep south probably doesn’t help matters. Since 2004, a low-level insurgency has been waged by quasi-secessionists in the Malay-Muslim majority provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat.

Thailand has a fervent gun culture on par with the United States,” the U.S. State Department’s Bureau for Diplomatic Security noted in a 2013 safety report

–

Unable to provide proper security for its residents, the government decided to delegate security responsibilities to paramilitary groups and civilian militias, most of whom are Thai Buddhists. These groups range from paramilitary rangers armed with M-16s assault rifles to civilian volunteer units armed with pump-action shotguns.

Authorities waive firearms regulations and subsidize gun purchases for vulnerable groups in the provinces, including government officials, teachers and militiamen.

However, experts claim Bangkok’s policy of arming its citizenry only exacerbates the conflict. Many of these militias groups are often ill-supervised and poorly disciplined. They exploit gaps in the rule of law to commit human rights abuses against the Malay majority.

Current policies also make it substantially easier for Thai Buddhists to acquire guns, compared to Malay Muslims, leaving the latter to feel defenseless and discriminated against. Armed Malays often suffer harassment by authorities.

The presence of guns only encourages violent, indiscriminate retribution rather than peaceful arbitration, allowing for tit-for-tat attacks which only fuel communal tensions. In June 2009 in Narathiwat, two Buddhist Thai teachers — including a pregnant woman — were killed by insurgents.

On June 8 that year, six masked gunmen opened fire at a mosque, killing 10 worshipers. Authorities believe the perpetrators to have been militiamen. Soon thereafter, Buddhist monks and Buddhist temples came under attack. A vicious cycle has formed in the deep south. Guns fuel insecurity and paranoia, which in turn increase the demand for guns.

Thai children aim an armoured vehicle-mounted rifle as a soldier watches during a gathering at a Navy camp on the occasion of National Children’s Day in Thailand’s restive southern province of Narathiwat – Photo MADAREE TOHLALA

–

Arguably, Thailand’s gun problem is not simply an issue of lax policing or short-sighted counterinsurgency strategy. It may also speak to a deeper cultural malaise. “Thailand has a fervent gun culture on par with the United States,” the U.S. State Department’s Bureau for Diplomatic Security noted in a 2013 safety report for its staff in Thailand.

Personal vendettas, fits of passion and loss of face over a business or personal dispute are often attributed for the kingdom’s high gun-related deaths. ‘There is a real culture of guns in Thailand,” a Western embassy staffer in Bangkok noted. “It’s a military-style culture, a place of uniforms and male power.”

Consider some recent shootings in Thailand. A senator who accidentally killed his wife with an Uzi over Sunday dinner. A bus driver who shot a passenger in the chest after the victim criticized his driving skills. A woman shot by an angry lover in a mall. A man shot dead in his apartment after arguing with his security guard. Two rival gangs having a shootout following a “Gangnam Style” dance-off.

School students arm themselves to uphold the honor of their school against rival schools. “Thailand has become a Wild West movie,” remarked controversial politician and once-seedy massage parlor tycoon Chuwit Kamolvisit. “People pull out their guns at a moment’s notice.”

Every year, on the second Saturday in January, Thailand holds their National Children’s Day.

–

People also point to Thailand’s notoriously unstable and corrupt political system. If you have no faith in the system to provide justice, owning a gun might seem like a way of ensuring justice. “If a man can’t wear a uniform, having a gun is the next best thing,” Chuwit said.

What attention Thai authorities do show to the problem tends to be very fleeting. Apart from occasionally demanding the handing-over of guns, Thais seem oddly apathetic toward gun crime. Kasit Piromya, a former foreign minister and advocate of gun control, attributes this to the Buddhist mentality of karma. “When you die, you die. It’s acceptance and resignation. We take death calmly as part of life.”

Whether this latest mass killing in Krabi inspires a serious discussion in Asia’s gun capital remains to be seen. The problem with gun cultures is that, once entrenched, they become very difficult to break. On Children’s Day in January 2017, kids as young as three were allowed to handle assault rifles and machine guns at the Royal Thai Naval Academy in south Bangkok.

Fun for the kids, probably. But also arguably fueling an already trigger-happy culture.

By Imran Shamsunahar, WIB

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP